It’s too bad that so many here appear to be unable or unwilling to read and understand Rand. It makes me wonder, therefore, how well they really understand Mises.

There’s more to understanding reality and living a successful life than starting and ending with economics and political philosophy. As Rand argued and demonstrated, you can’t justify and sustain a political system if you start with freedom as a fundamental axiom. That’s why 25 years of libertarianism has been an absolute failure in terms of having a cultural impact, as many Austrian scholars are beginning to admit.

Rand and Austrian economics can be compatible, but you need to come at it from philosophy and put economics in its right place. That’s what makes George Reisman so valuable and profound.

People who seriously think Ayn Rand’s philosophy is bizarre can be of no help in the fight for freedom.

If you don’t want to read Rand, then read Peikoff’s Objectivism. There’s a brilliant philosophic insight on every page. Read Andrew Bernstein’s Objectivism in One Lesson or his wonderful book The Capitalist Manifesto. And of course, read George Reisman.

If you’re really serious about fighting for freedom and individual rights, then it’s time for a serious reassessment, folks. If you’re not, then no wonder you show disdain for Rand.

It shows how communist Americans are.
Ayn Rand is the glow of Capitalism and Individual liberty.

Yes, that’s my view as well. When I first saw that interview I was frustrated Rand didn’t answer the question directly and simply. Then she could have applied a bit of a sting in the tail for the questioner. (e.g. “this is so simple you’d have understood it if you had the intellect to apply to the matter”- that type of thing). It would have given the audience an important answer to consider while satisfying her desire to chastise the naughtiness of the questioner.

The lesson for me was that one may admire the leading thinkers of libertarian (classic type) thought but one MUST read, analyse, evaluate and understand what they are saying well prior to accepting and integrating them into one’s system of thought. That’s hard work sometimes but the rewards are great. Do your homework early, exactly as the school teachers exhorted (don’t you hate when they turned out to be right all along)! Then keep mouth shut unless it is absolutley essential to say something (like to ask a question of clarification).

On another note. Years ago I had a conversation with the great LJK Setright. He was a specialist motoring journalist, since deceased. On one occasion he commented on a type of engine, which at the time, I was not interested in. I interrupted and steered the subject back towards my then interest. Some time later I discovered what he had been talking about and decided to approach him about it, seeking more detail. This was years on from our original discussion. He’d forgotten all about it. I was frustrated. I’d lost out. Sometimes as people age their intellect alters, they forget things, their interests alter slightly and information is lost. The lesson is to take in what you can get while you can get it. Deal with the rest in your own time- when you have time for further research and consideration.

Get the questions to ask listed out ahead of time. Listen to everything that comes your way, including the stuff you were not necessarily after. That’s the way to deal with important and interesting thinkers. There are not many of them around. If you find some you can talk to you then you are a very lucky man indeed.

The best of luck to you.

Talofa!

Sione

That’s very interesting indeed. I had wondered what every became of Solzhenitsyn. Do you know more about the situation?

Sione

Yes, the perspective you bring definitely helps to account for Rand’s reaction.

“Rand could have handled this situation far more effectively…”

I realize it’s all too easy for me to form my opinion from the comfort of my easy chair, but perhaps her greatest shortcoming then, was a lack of sense of humor. With a greater ability in this regard, maybe she could have then focused on the addressing the philosophical issue, instead of having to fend off affronts from those who may actually be receptive and have come to see the light if explained to properly.

This is indeed unfortunate. Apparently, many still get it wrong, including Mark Skousen.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0306/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

But Rand was freakish. Hard to explain by the normal laws of nature. Like Michael Jordans leap. Or Joan of Arc.

Rands smarts were so inexplicable that it almost compromises my atheism.

And I like being an atheist.

Rand is just spooky.

Now it is the case that these super-brainy women go a little nutty when they get to their 50′s.

And I hear that this nuttiness hurt a bunch of people.

Stop giving her such a hard time. SHE WAS A WOMAN after all.

SHE WAS A WOMAN.

And she only had to sort things out because we blokes were doing such a bad job of it.

I am grateful for what the philosopher acheived every day of my life.

And though everyone might protest, part of that acheivement, assisted us in getting mises.org. The best website on the net no question.

Not taking any credit away from Lew and Murray.

The greatest website on the net.

They’ll deny it of course.

They will deny it until their faces fall off.

But it is hard to imagine a mises.org without the existence of the philosopher.

And the philosopher helped bring us George Reisman.

Our greatest living economist.

Rand took offense at that woman and the group she was sitting with. She thought the questioner was intending to show disrespect and ostracism. She’d experienced enough of that for it to rile her up (as you can see on the film clip). She responded in turn by ostracising the woman. The trouble was that it left an interesting question unanswered (as you have pointed out). Note that on several occasions Rand offers to answer the question if someone else would raise it. No-one does.

Rand could have handled this situation far more effectively. Unfortunately by the time that audience participation interview was recorded Rand’s intellect was fading. She’d experienced several personal crises and tragedies (some of her own making) and she’d been on the recieving end of public abuse, criticism, ostracism and opposition from the liberal establishment for years. She was well past her best by then. Probably tired and fed up.

On a later interview she mentioned how certain losses and set backs removed (bit by bit) the (her?) passion for life. The death of someone close to her is an example she raised to illustrate that point. Likely with this example she was reffering to the death of her husband and the effect it was having over her. It’s an interesting insight. She’d had plenty of losses and set-backs over a considerable time.

Rand is an interesting historical figure. Colourful, exotic, bizzare and in some ways incomprehensible. She should be remembered for the ideas and the content of what she argued. that’s where the value lies.

Sione

Read the book and find out.

Sione

His persona became the subject of literary parodies and personal innuendos – such as the poisonous memoirs of his first wife Reshetovskaya, or a hilarious anti-utopian spoof by Vladimir Voinovich, in which he ridiculed Solzhenitsyn’s social projects and propensity for folksy earthly wisdoms. But his public gestures didn’t require any fictional elaboration. Edward E. Ericson, Jr, and Daniel J. Mahoney, the editors of this volume, mention the tragic fate of Solzhenitsyn’s Moscow typist, who cracked after a week of severe interrogations and handed over to the KGB a copy of the manuscript of The Gulag Archipelago. So acute was her sense of betrayal of Solzhenitsyn’s cause that she committed suicide. This was the most tragic but not the only instance when fear of incurring Solzhenitsyn’s disapproval made people act against their better judgement and those who had fallen foul of him were ostracized. He banished from his life everyone whom he suspected of disloyalty, including the most insightful and trustworthy of his biographers, Michael Scammell. For Solzhenitsyn and his defenders it was the only way to preserve the memory of the horrors of Stalinism for future generations; for his detractors, his civic zeal was just a cover for megalomaniacal vanity.

Rand and Solzhenitsyn have little in common except for: a) their hatred of Communism, and… b) their country of origin.

[ Quoted snippet from http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25341-2617318,00.html ]

But I don’t see how what the woman said conflicts with Rand’s philosophy. Rand has said numerous times that individuals may serve others if its voluntary and if its for rationally selfish reasons. What the woman said seemed to be perfectly consistent with this principle. Not that what happened on a Donahue show matters much over 20 years later–:)–I think Rand totally dropped the ball addressing that one particular question.

Please, read what was actually written to you.

I didn’t post a link. I didn’t provide a web site address either. I suggested you read one particular book. That book was “Capitalism” by Prof Reisman. Can you get it?

The fact that Prof Reisman not only met von Mises but was his student is one of the facts you’d discover in that particular book. This is not news. It’s well known.

You originally wrote: “I still can’t understand why people who call themselves Austrians would ever defend Rand.” You’d find out if you checked out what the good Professor had to say.

Sione

PS Rand and Rothbard did not get on. There’s a quite a story behind their mutual animosity. There was a falling out. In the end Rothbard considered Rand a cultist and Rand accused Rothbard of plagiarising a student’s work. What understanding and friendship there had been soon disappeared. Is this really important? Or is it the ideas each of them discussed and the ideas they promoted that are important?